"But whether or not I agree, the question is whether the justices really have the authority to define "cruel" this way, usurping state prerogatives."
They have the authority because they are granted the authority by the covalent branches of government.
The only way for Congress or the President, or the States for that matter, to establish that the Supremes do NOT have that authority would be to simply defy them, and then for the covalent branches of government to stand with the defiant one.
That has not happened since Lincoln.
Which means that the idea that the three branches of government are EQUAL in authority is just an opinion.
The actual fact of the matter is that the Judiciary is the supreme branch of government, because it is the only branch that cannot be overturned by the other two, but it can overturn any act of any other branch of government without appeal.
Do they have the "authority"?
Obviously they do. The President, Congress and the States obey them, don't they?
Therefore, they have the authority.
Since there is no practical way around a Supreme Court decision, the only way to assert that the Court lacked the AUTHORITY would be by stating so and IGNORING the Court.
Note: Amending the Constitution to get around a problem is NOT saying that the Court lacks the authority. Rather the opposite. It says that the Court HAS the authority, and that the Constitution itself needs to be changed to address the issue the Court has raised.
The only way to demonstrate that the Supreme Court is limited in authority is for the other branches of government to explicitly and publicly defy a Supreme Court decision, asserting on their own that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to render such a decision.
It will not work if just the Executive does this: Congress will override him. It will not work if Congress does it: the Executive will investigate and prosecute. What is required is an open confrontation between the Executive and Legislative Branches with the Judiciary, specifically by the direct rejection and defiance of a Supreme Court order, on the explicit publicly stated grounds that the Supreme Court has abused its power and does not in fact have the Constitutional authority to make a certain decision. President Jackson did this, for a bad cause. President Lincoln did it pretty routinely in a good one.
But no President since has done so.
And if none dares to, and no Congress will go along, then you have your full answer: the Supreme Court absolutely has the authority to render such decisions, and is the senior branch of government.
BS.
The legislative branch can pass and the executive branch can sign bills that are not subject to judicial review if they want.
Also, the executive branch can exercise an absolute pardon if it disagrees with a conviction.
Yeah, Andrew Jackson: "Justice (Taney?) has ruled, now let him enforce." Pretty cool.
As I understand the problem, this is not a question of distribution of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial in the federal government. Rather it is a question of the power of the federal government in nullifying duly enacted state legislation.
"The only way for Congress or the President, or the States for that matter, to establish that the Supremes do NOT have that authority would be to simply defy them, and then for the covalent branches of government to stand with the defiant one.
That has not happened since Lincoln."
Incorrect. In 1936, the SCOTUS rejected Roosevelt's New Deal, including "Socialist Security". Roosevelt threatened to add six new Justices. Several Justices resigned; the new SCOTUS decided that the 1936 decisions were wrong, and what was Unconstitutional in 1936 was Constitutional in 1938, without benefit of Amending the Constitution in the meantime.